Jones v. Mostella

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 2/24/2017. (PSM)

FILED
2017 Feb-24 AM 10:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
CLIFTON LAMAR JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY R. MOSTELLA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-01543-LSC-SGC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report on January 31, 2017, recommending the
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment due
process and equal protection claims be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. (Doc. 18). The magistrate judge further recommended the plaintiff’s
request for release from prison be denied.

(Id.).

The magistrate judge also

recommended the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied as moot.
(Id.). The plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on February
6, 2017. (Doc. 21).
In his objections, the plaintiff states that he wants to “proceed with this
action” and does not understand how “everything is being denied.” (Doc. 21). The
plaintiff contends he is “looking for justice” and reasserts his assertion that he

should not be imprisoned. (Id.). The plaintiff alleges he is currently in segregation
and does not have telephone or store privileges and cannot purchase envelopes or
stamps. (Id.).
The plaintiff does not address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that his
claims for excessive force, due process, and equal protection are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), because a successful outcome in the
present action would contradict his 2016 assault conviction and prison disciplinary
proceedings, which have not been invalidated. (Doc. 18 at 10-15). Neither does
the plaintiff address the magistrate judge’s finding that his request for immediate
release must be brought in a habeas action, rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Id. at 15).

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Richardson v.

Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 373 (5th Cir. 1981).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal
protection claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Additionally, the plaintiff’s request to be

2

released from prison is due to be denied. Lastly, the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is due to be denied as moot. (Id.).
A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED on February 24, 2017.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
160704

3